David Cameron should give Ministers their freedom in EU campaign

The Prime Minister must tread carefully over the one issue that could split
his party

Prime Minister David Cameron speaks at a press conference at the end of the summit of G7 nations at Schloss Elmau Photo: Getty Images

By Paul Goodman

10:01PM BST 15 Jun 2015

On a sideboard in the office of Lord Feldman, the Conservative Party Chairman, is a photograph of the man who appointed him – his friend, David Cameron. It was snapped at five in the morning the day after the general election, at about the time when the Prime Minister would have learned that, in the most extraordinary contest of modern times, he had pulled off a majority that almost no one had expected (including him).

Lord Feldman is standing on Mr Cameron’s right, and Jim Messina – the former Obama aide brought in to pep up the Conservative campaign – on his left. They lean forward, arms draped round each other’s necks: it might be very late in the evening after a rugby club dinner. Through the usual mask of Prime Ministerial command bursts an exultant gaze of relief, exhaustion, wonder – and sheer triumph.

The EU Referendum Bill is returning to the Commons. In a party in which divisions between Right and Left have largely broken down, Europe remains the single issue that has party-splitting potential – as it demonstrated during the 1990s when the Conservatives were last in government with a slender majority, at the time of John Major’s premiership and the Maastricht Bill.

In coalition, the Prime Minister helped to keep the Tory show on the road bypledging a renegotiation and referendum by 2017. Although revolts on Europe sizzled away throughout the last Parliament, this was enough of a concession to fend off those in his party who want out of the EU altogether, but not so much of one as to inflame those others who believe that we should stay in at all costs.

The Bill sets out the terms of that referendum and, in doing so, is a reminder of where Mr Cameron’s heart lies. It is just about possible to imagine him, frustrated by the unwillingness of other EU countries to give him enough ground, returning to Britain to recommend a No vote. But it is extraordinarily unlikely. The Prime Minister believes that the country’s interests are best served by staying in the EU.

This presumably explains why the Bill, as it stands, loads the referendum dice for Yes. The most important issue at stake is “purdah” – that’s to say, the pre-vote period in which a level playing field for all sides is ensured. This is achieved by government not announcing policies or spending money that could be seen to support any particular party or cause.

Purdah applied in last month’s general election, last year’s Scottish referendum, and the referendum on electoral reform that took place during the last Parliament. But it will not, as matters stand, apply to the referendum campaign. Eurosceptics on the Conservative backbenchers smell a rat. Owen Paterson, the former Cabinet Minister, is leading the charge to get purdah into the Bill.

He argues that its absence would allow both the Government and the EU to lavish funds on the Yes campaign, not only directly but through the mass of lobby and interest groups that it helps to fund. This will be a bracing test of the Prime Minister’s resolve to turn over a new leaf with his party, as he started to do with a post-election reshuffle that offered something to all parts of it.

On the one hand, he is threatened with a revolt by more than 50 MPsand the recent of launch of Conservatives for Britain, a new group and kind of shadow “Out” campaign that claims the support of more than 100 Tory MPs. It won a noticeably warm reception in the Commons last week from Chris Grayling, the Eurosceptic Leader of the House.

On the other, there is a sense in the Commons that the high tide of protest may have been reached. The Maastricht saga took place over a generation ago. Half the Tory Parliamentary Party was new in 2010. Another quarter of it is fresh this time round.

The defection to Ukip of Mark Reckless, in particular, angered many Conservative MPs and drew them closer together. The presence of Kelly Tolhurst, who defeated Reckless last month, drew a raucous cheer at the first full post-election meeting of Tory MPs. Above all, many of those winners in marginal seats feel that they owe their victories to Mr Cameron and to the Chancellor. The Prime Minister must feel tempted to take his critics on, and use the whips to get new and impressionable backbenchers into line.

None the less, wiser counsel will probably prevail. Mr Cameron and his team are well aware – or should be – that the Government majority is scarcely out of single figures. Much will depend on how key votes are arranged, whether the SNP turns up in full force, and what Labour do: so far, they have wavered between supporting the Government and opposing it.

But the signs are that Ministers are looking for a compromise, though how meaningful this might be remains to be seen. The Foreign Office claims to have been ambushed by the issue. Even Downing Street itself seems to have seen how far things have got out of hand, and how fast.

We may know later whether the Prime Minister really wants a new start – and perhaps how much clout some of the ageing euro-rebels still have. Whatever happens, this week’s exchanges are a mere overture for the drama to follow. Mr Cameron has to decide what to do about his Cabinet members that are likely to line up for Out: Iain Duncan Smith; Mr Grayling; Michael Gove; perhaps John Whittingdale; Oliver Letwin; Priti Patel and others. There will be others further down the ministerial food chain.

The Prime Minister got into a right old muddle about this matter last week, from which he sought to extricate himself by blaming the press (never a good idea). The later the referendum is held, the easier it may be for him to sack dissenters before they resign – assuming, that is, that he intends not to give them a licence to disagree with the Government view and argue for Out during the campaign itself.

What he should do, in the interests of party unity, is give Ministers their freedom during the campaign, and seek to bring his party back together afterwards (though he may attempt a fudge whereby any resignations last for the campaign period only). This is a challenge that Harold Wilson rose to in 1975 during the last euro-referendum. He won a Yes vote – and then pushed off.

If Mr Cameron also leads a Yes campaign and himself wins the vote, it will mark his third referendum victory – after a landslide rejection of electoral reform, and a narrower rebuff to Scottish independence. He could then retire, twice undefeated in general elections – no mean achievement. But the twists and turns that dog Britain’s relationship with Europe have a way of knocking such happy plans off-course.